Article published in:
The Lexicon–Syntax Interface: Perspectives from South Asian languages
Edited by Pritha Chandra and Richa Srishti
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 209] 2014
► pp. 127–148

Ditransitive structures in Hindi/Urdu

| Northeastern University
This chapter makes the following two language specific claims; (a) Hindi/Urdu involves two types of ditransitive constructions, corresponding to the prepositional dative constructions and the double object constructions as in languages like English, and (b) the two constructions are not derivationally connected, and are a result of two distinct ditransitive verbs in Hindi/Urdu, namely the “send” type verbs and the “show” type verbs. The two types of verbs have different argument structures and as a consequence two different verb phrase structures. The difference between the two types of verbs however doesn’t get reflected in the word – order in Hindi/Urdu because of the feature-driven movement of the objects to the edge of the vP.
Keywords: ditransitives, hierarchical relation, Hindi/Urdu, thematic structure, VP-structure
Published online: 25 March 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.209.06mal
References
Abraham, Werner
2010 Types of transitivity. Intransitive objects and untransitivity – and the logic of their de signs: Ways to keep apart derivation in syntax and the lexicon. In Transitivity: Form, Meaning, Acquisition, and Processing [Linguistic Aktuell/Linguistics Today 166], Patrick Brandt & Marco GarcíaGarcía (eds), 15–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark
1988  Incorporation. A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Beck, Sigrid & Johnson, Kyle
2004 Double objects again. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 97–123. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh & Dayal, Veneeta
2007 Rightward scrambling as rightward Remnant movement. Linguistic Inquiry 38(2): 287–301. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bhattacharya, Tanmoy & Andrew, Simpson
2011 Diagnosing double object constructions in Bangla/Bengali. Lingua 121: 1067–1082. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan
2007 Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In Roots: Linguistics in Search of its Evidential Base [Studies in Generative Grammar], Sam Featherston & Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds), 77–99. Berlin: Mounton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Nikitina, Tatiana
2009 The gradience of the dative alternation. In Reality Exploration and Discovery: Pattern Interaction in Language and Life , Linda Uyechi & Lian Hee Wee (eds), 161–184. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana & Baayen, R. Harald
2007 Predicting the dative alternation. In Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation , Gerlof Boume, Irene Kraemer & Joost Zwarts (eds), 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin
2001 QR obeys superiority: Frozen scope and ACD. Linguistic Inquiry 32(2): 233–273. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Double object constructions disguised as prepositional datives. Linguistic Inquiry 41(2): 287–305. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1995  The Minimalist Program . Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2001 Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language , Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–50. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J
1965  Indirect Object Construction in English and the Ordering of Transformation. Monographs on Linguistics Analysis . Mouton: The Hague.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia M
1974  Semantics and Syntactic Regularity . Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel J
1994 Limits on Arguments Structure. MIT Manuscript.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi
1995 Subjects, Events, and Licensing, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
1997 If you have, then you can give. In: B. Agbayani and S.-W. Tang, eds. Proceedings of the 15th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics . Stanford, CA.: CSLI.Google Scholar
Hoji, Hajime
1985 Logical Form Constraints and Configurational Structures in Japanese. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Seattle.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard
1994  The Antisymmetry of Syntax . Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kidwai, Ayesha
2000  XP-adjunction in Universal Grammar: Scrambling and Binding in Hindi-Urdu . New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K
1988 On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–392.Google Scholar
Mahajan, Anoop
1997a Against a rightward movement analysis of extraposition and rightward scrambling. In Scrambling , Shigeo Tonoike (ed.), 93–124. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.Google Scholar
Malhotra, Shiti
2005 Asymmetry of Objects and the Larsonian VP-shell for Hindi/Urdu. M.Phil dissertation, University of Delhi.Google Scholar
2011 Movement and Intervention Effects. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec
1993 Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar , Sam Mchombo (ed.), 113–150. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.Google Scholar
Matsuoka, Mikinari
2003 Two types of ditransitive constructions in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 12: 171–203. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mazurkewich, Irene & White, Lydia
1984 The acquisition of the dative alternation: Unlearning over generalizations. Cognition 16: 261–283. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McGinnis, Martha
2003 Lethal Ambiguity. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 47–95. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru
1997 Against optional scrambling. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 1–26.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru & Tsujioka, Takae
2004 Argument structure and ditransitive verbs in Japanese. Journal of East-Asian Linguistics 13: 1–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oehrle, Richard T
1976 The Grammatical Status of the English Dative Alternations. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David
1995  Zero Syntax . Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven
1989  Learnability and Cognition; the Acquisition of Argument Structure . Cambridge, MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina
2002 Introducing Arguments. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin
2001 An Idiomatic Argument for Lexical Decomposition. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 183–192. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, Andrew & Bhattacharya, Tanmoy
2003 Obligatory overt wh-movement in a Wh-in situ language. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 127–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar